Sunday, 12 October 2014

Ukipanic

After Thursday’s UK by-elections,
we have had a huge amount of ‘Oh God, what will it all mean, will politics ever
be the same again’ speculation. As Labour nearly lost one of its safe seats,
they as well as the Conservatives are trying hard not to panic. Some writers
have optimistically coupled this result with the Scottish referendum turnout to
suggest there is a new engagement in politics (but not of the conventional
kind) and a search for ‘political identity’. Others have more pessimistically
drawn parallels with the rise of fascism. (Are these two contradictory?)

If you see everything in terms of a left-right spectrum, then
UKIP’s popularity seems to indicate a dramatic shift to the right. Here is the
share of the popular vote gained in elections since 1945, but ending with an
average of current polls.

If we place the LibDems as somewhere near the centre of this
spectrum, then we have a fairly even balance between parties of the right and
left - until now. So has there been a sharp movement to the right among the
electorate? UKIP policies are clearly to the right of the Conservatives. But it
may be a mistake to confuse the party and its policies with the views of those
currently voting for them. Here is Owen Jones noting how UKIP voters tend
to want to renationalise the railways and energy companies, increase the
minimum wage substantially, and keep the NHS within the public sector.

Perhaps we should see UKIP as an anti-Europe party, something
outside the left-right spectrum? Again the party is not the same as its
supporters. Only a quarter of UKIP voters in this survey said resolving Britain’s future
relations with the European Union is one of the three most important issues currently facing the country.
Conservative MPs may be switching to UKIP because of Europe, but it is not
clear that UKIP voters are.

Before leaving this chart, we should note that the rise in UKIP
is not the only recent dramatic change. The other is the decline of the LibDem
vote. In the by-election where Labour only just retained their seat, we
actually saw Labour keep its 2010 share of the vote. The gain in UKIP’s share
was accounted for by a roughly equal decline in the share of the Conservatives
and LibDems. As many Conservatives will have been voting tactically, we once
again see an apparent shift from LibDem to UKIP.

Now we know that around half of UKIP voters used to
vote Conservative, not LibDem. We also know that a significant number of
ex-LibDem voters (about a third?) have moved to Labour, as we
might have expected as a result of forming a coalition with the Conservatives.
But about 20% of UKIP voters who voted for another party in 2010 are ex-LibDem
voters - that is about half a million voters. (The equivalent
number for Labour is 15%) Anyone familiar with LibDem policies would be
surprised the figure is this high: UKIP wants to leave Europe, but the LibDems
have always been the most pro-Europe party. However this may be making the same
mistake again: assuming that voters’ views map to party policies.

Here is an alternative idea that might be part (and only part)
of the story. (It is far from original - see Adam Lent for example.) An important underlying trend
since perhaps the 1960s is the rise of the disaffected voter. These are voters
with no strong ideological affiliations, and with little interest or knowledge
of politics. What they do feel strongly about, however, is that politicians in
power do not represent their views or interests, and that ‘they are all as bad
as each other’. What will attract these voters are politicians who are not part
of the ‘Westminster elite’, because they are untainted by government. This is
not a peculiar UK phenomenon - not being part ‘of Washington’ is a constant
appeal in the US. This, rather than policies, may be the key factor for these
voters.

The emergence of this group could explain some part of the rise
in the LibDem vote since the 1970s. By joining the coalition after the 2010
election the LibDems not only lost their more left leaning supporters, they also
lost the support of the disaffected voter, because they were now part of
government. Very quickly their image changed from plucky outsiders to part of
the Westminster establishment, and they could no longer be the party of the
disaffected voter. But neither could Labour, who not only had been recently in
government, but continued to behave as they did in government. The disaffected
voter needed somewhere to go, and for some UKIP became their home.

Of course a large part of UKIP’s support is from disgruntled
Conservatives. But if that was the complete story, UKIP’s rise would only be a
problem for the Conservatives, and Labour would be quietly encouraging UKIP.
This is clearly not the case. If this idea of the disaffected voter sounds
similar to the old idea of the protest vote, that is partly true, but with an
important difference. Protest votes are generally assumed to melt away come
general elections, but this will not be true of the disaffected voter. For that
reason, expecting UKIP to fade away may be naive.

By now you are probably screaming: what about immigration! I
think immigration is the kind of the issue that the disaffected voter would
focus on. But this post is already too long so my thoughts will have to wait,
although I think Chris Dillow is on the right track.

20 comments:

You missed off the Greens, which any analysis of this phenomenon also has to take into account. They are polling around 5%, pushed the Lib Dems into fifth in the Euros, and had their first MP before the Kippers. it is the rise of the Greens that has hurt the left most in other countries (eg Ger, Aus, Can).

Like the SNP, Ukip are the triumph of unreason. In relation to immigration, the only thing this can be fought with is reason, of which Dillow's piece is one of many that could be produced.

But, Ukip clearly are not just the party of protest. They are a popular rightist party of the kind other European countries have but we in the UK have not. In the past, such parties have been weakened by their links to fascism and racism. Ukip in the main avoids that.

They have two other advantages

(i) They have a charismatic leader. Farage has few appeals for me, a member of the metropolitan elite, but it is easy to see what his appeal is. He is the anti-MIliband.

(ii) The failure of the European project with the disaster of the eurozone makes their central claim appear appealing. The most prominent cheerleaders for the European project in the UK were all supporters of the Euro. It is rare in politics for one side to be decisively proven wrong, but that is what has happened. Someone like, say, Will Hutton is a wholly discredited figure of fun.

In the face of Farage the Tories have few good options, but it is at least clear what they must do. They would be in even worse difficulty, with more defections, if Cameron had not promised a European referendum. They have been as tough on immigration as they could be (and tougher than makes rational sense).

The dilemma for Labour is in some ways worse. So Labour is losing votes to the SNP (and in Wales Plaid Cymru), Ukip and the Greens. The strategy to meet each is different. If the Lib Dem vote had not collapsed, the Labour position wold be bleak. If,say, the Tories had managed to squeak a majority in 2010 it is hard to see how Labour would have recovered any of its vote share. As it is, Labour will almost certainly win in 2015, but the electoral future looks bleak, especially as they will have to continue with what this blog terms 'austerity'.

The election of Miliband was an appalling act of self-indulgence by the romantic wing of the Labour party.

In some ways, the rise of the populist parties, like UKIP, Front Nationale, and also recently the AfD in Germany, is not just a disillusionment of Conservatives, but also a split going through the labour movement. The two main axes of political ideology are social and economic. The labour movement is distinguished from other ideological streams by its 'leftiness' on the economic axis. It is usually assumed, that this leftiness also extends to social issues. In a way, this has happened and is true in the USA, where 'Reagan Conservatives" and the Tea Party movement basically split the working class apart so that an intra-party mix of conservative and liberal positions does not exist anymore. But without the force of a strong two-party-system, there are places for economically conservative, but socially liberal parties (which the LibDems have turned into and which Labour is approaching), and a socially conservative, economically liberal party, and that is what UKIP might be going for. Immigration is here regarded as a social issue, not an economic one. Europe is also more of a social issue in their perspective. It's also a countermovement against globalization/internationalization.

" Immigration is here regarded as a social issue, not an economic one. Europe is also more of a social issue in their perspective. It's also a countermovement against globalization/internationalization."

I absolutely agree with this. And the mainstream macro profession has been slow to realise it. As Marx and Polanyi pointed out, globalisation can lead to a separation of the production process from local workers. Together with very large movement of labour it leads to a sense of disempowerment. A large group of people do not feel they have a stake in the social, political and economicsystem.

It is time for the profession to start putting some of its obsessions (such as the deification of classical economic theories like comparative advantage, micro-founded macro and inappropriate use of mathematics for humanistic issues) aside and start reading some of the history of its discipline, of where they are likely to find explanations, and maybe, solutions.

Psephologists tend to see the UK election of 1974 as being the one that saw the break from the two-party Labour-Tory state that WW2 had ushered in.

Secondly, much of UKIP spiritually dates back to Enoch Powell and his break with Heath, which some saw as Powell's opportunistically newfound dislike of the EEC. Powell's 'alternative manifesto' removed foreign aid, for example. And Powell loved, was infatuated with Westminster Parliament, whatever those union dockers felt who marched in support of 'Rivers of Blood'.

I note also that the BNP vote has collapsed, as the extreme right vote did when Thatcher was in power.

Possibly a disaffected voter syndrome. May be more a case of resurgence of the moderate right or traditional centre right Conservative, who, believes in NHS but more efficient than currently, is anti-immigration, is not against some more progressive taxation, is for low debt, can't stand banker's bonuses and so on. Rather than the neo-liberal right who are have just gone mad with their ideas. Right sided values don't always mean neo-liberal right sided economics.

The fact that some Labour supporters switched just reflects their more moderate and centre left positional rather than a more extreme left position.

Voting is about values and not always about economic positions. It is a fertile ground for UKIP.

Asking people about the importance of the EU amongst a plethora of other policy issues is a disengenuous polling question. The EU plays a role in all of the issues that voters have to consider. The EU is a tier of government - it makes binding law, It's court is a superior court. The EU is not a policy issue of the British government (or opposition) it is itself a government in being. This is why the voters who say they will vote to leave the EU have grown despite the same voters not ranking the EU as important within the meaningless frame of a domestic policy menu.

Who exercises power?How did they obtain it?How can they be removed?

These were the questions raised against EEC governance by that famous social and economic right winger Tony Benn. The British left described the EEC as "a bankers ramp" - and in that prediction they certainly were spot on.

Simon is right - the fact that the running is now being made by a right wing party does not make the EU a right wing issue. It is the same issue it has always been - by what right and under what accountability does the EU make our law? Nationalists/ Patriots are offended by the rolling dissolution of the nation and democrats are offended by the rolling dissolution of democracy. This combines into is a large and increasingly self aware constituency that is currently holding it's nose and voting UKIP because they cannot get control over their own nation/ politicians until our great new European oligarchy is removed from authority.

It's the same in Denmark - it's left wing politics with a xenophobic overlay (Danish People's Party) - a.k.a. National Socialism. UKIP, Front National, Danish People's Party, etc... are outisde of the post-WWII paradigm as they are a return to the old politics of National Socialism. World goes in cycles - we are devolving.

1. When you implement a program of financial repression you get a kick back.Those on fixed incomes (pensioners) and those looking to move 'up the ladder' have been deliberately targeted by govt policies which support asset prices. Thus incomes stagnate at both ends of the spectrum - the young need to save more and more and the old - while holding assets - see their income decrease.

2. The outright lies of govt parties are being realised by people across the country. It is the people who are sovereign, not the party leaders or civil servants. Constantly undermining the 'will of the people', however misguided that will may be, is a recipe for this current (growing) disaster. You cannot govern legitimately in this scenario. To wit - the Labour party have come out about 'sharing the concern' people have with immigration. This is exactly the opposite of what they think and happily, a huge mistake, as most people will realise a bare faced lie when they see it. David Cameron badly needs a tough anti-immigrant stance and I suggest here that he will introduce swingeing cuts to immigration in the run up to the election. These will be real, quantifiable and 'shocking'. So good will the ruse be that many members of his own party will howl and protest - but the new 'Im listening to the people' tough-guy stance will hold fast.How will this be achieved, I hear you ask?Well, Mr Cameron will announce a huge reduction in the number of Visas given out to non-EU migrants. This will be big and will be focused mainly on Nigeria, India and Pakistan.Of course it will all be a cynical charade, an outright lie even. In fact it will be the exactly the type of deception that has the public in despair of the current establishment.

You see, just last week Theresa May traveled all the way to Dublin to sign a joint UK/RoI visa deal. This will allow holders of 'Irish' visas to enter the UK.http://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/uk-ireland-visa-deal-an-historic-pact-frances-fitzgerald-says-1.1953778The result will be a huge decrease in visas granted by the UK govt; a tangible, quantifiable metric to hang the govts new tough-on-immigration stance.Of course that those refused entry visas to the UK can just march down the road to the Irish embassy and gain the same status without appearing in UK immigration figures is just coincidence, innit?So the establishment once again

Events in 2004 were surely behind the rise of UKIP. UKIP might be anti-Europe, but I think the voters are anti historically high (and sustained) rates of immigration -particularly that which arose from the rapid expansion of the EU eastwards to much poorer members. They are not rascist. Generally actually, you would probably find they have a lot of sympathy for Syrian asylum seekers (as does, you might be surprised, Farage). Essentially they have seen a Blair boom followed by a bust with little tangible outcomes for employment and low income groups. Large and uncontrolled immigration of cheap labour is essentially the last thing they feel we need.

In your first sentence you say 'surely', but where is your evidence. As my post shows, the big rise in concern about immigration was before 2004. The evidence for a 'Blair boom' is dubious too: see http://mainlymacro.blogspot.co.uk/2014/08/the-pre-recession-uk-debt-fuelled-boom.html

The conservatives would initially have benefitted from the sudden rise in "economic immigration" from 2004. I believe it was at this point when support for Europe began to collapse. (There was also a large number of people disconnected from the political process who did not benefit from increased capital gain on house prices and higher incomes for people working in the financial sector etc during the Blair years - so sure those people were given a voice by UKIP and this phenomenon to some extent existed before 2004).

When it was understood that the Coalition was not able to deal with this (and other related and unrelated) problems, people started looking for something else - and their support collapsed - looks like 2011 on your graph. It also gave a voice to people who already felt unrepresented in the political process. So sure it was not just 2004 and it was not just immigration, although decisions made during that time regarding immigration and European expansion were critical in reducing support for Europe, uncontrolled movement of labour from the new EU states, reducing support for the major parties, and increasing the profile of UKIP.

I think if they find a solution to long-term unemployment of native workers (and politicians say that unemployment is falling, and not employment is rising - which people know - and also know that a lot of foreigners are entering and taking jobs) we will see a neutralisation of the immigration issue. Although I still think congestion (new housing and also more roads, airports, trains necessary etc) and pressures on health and education will be a problem.

The country will start to look more like Japan. That is we will have to get used to - high-density living. That will mean the end of houses in zone one and two in London, and a lot more tower blocks - which we are already seeing.

People will get used to it - it will be the new norm. Environmentalists and English Heritage, though, will probably not be happy!

Look forward to that. Also on the above link from the migrationobservatory, its policy recommendation:

"The implication is that labour immigration from the EU could be reduced by changes to the public policies and institutions that have contributed to a growing demand for migrant labour. These policy changes include, for example, more and better training of British workers (e.g. in sectors like construction where the lack of a comprehensive training system fuels the demand for experienced East European migrant labour), changes in welfare policies to encourage more British workers to join the workforce (something the government has already begun to do), and better wages and conditions in some low waged public sector jobs."

I think such active labour market policies are also the answer to dealing with long term unemployment and getting rid of excuses like NAIRU.

You can advocate anti-austerity, aggregate demand expansionary macro-policy in a liquidity trap arguments as much as you like but you will not solve long term structural unemployment unless you put in measures that actively and directly address it. My guess is that an expansionary macro-policy and recovery will increase numbers employed - but this will be met by an increase in eastern european workers; it will barely make a dent in the unemployment and underemployment rate or in low skilled wages.

This article is efficient. Thank you for sharing it with us. I am visiting this blog on a daily basis and I am finding so much helpful article each time. Keep working on this and thank you once again. xnxx

Unfortunately because of spam with embedded links (which then flag up warnings about the whole site on some browsers), I have to personally moderate all comments. As a result, your comment may not appear for some time. In addition, I cannot publish comments with links to websites because it takes too much time to check whether these sites are legitimate.